why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

[Reality Check]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1940PhRv...58..310N

Still insisting on dipslaying your ignorance, pedrone.
You really cannot get the simple concept that science progresses and the experimental results are refined.

Measured in 1940: On the Value of the Electric Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron

As stated by the latter authors, the quadrupole moment is 2.73 × 10^-27 cm². The writer estimates the limits of error of this value to be +/-2 percent.

Measured in 1950: The Electric Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron

The value obtained is Q_D=(2.766±0.025)×10^-27 cm²

Measured in 1972: Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron

With the use of experimental values of the quadrupole interaction constant, the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron is found to be 0.2875 F² which is 2% larger than the most recent values. The estimated error is 0.002 F²

Published in 1998: Stones Table of Nuclear Magnetic Dipole and Electric Quadrupole Moments (PDF)

+0.00286(2) barns (PR A20 381 (79))
and 0.0028(2) barns (NP A435 502 (85))

Measured in 2010: Determination of deuteron quadrupole moment from calculations of the electric field gradient in D2 and HD

We have carried out an accurate determination of the quadrupole moment of the deuteron nucleus. The evaluation of the constant is achieved by combining high accuracy Born-Oppenheimer calculations of the electric field gradient at the nucleus in the H2 molecule with spectroscopic measurements of the quadrupolar splitting in D2 and HD. The derived value is Q=0.285783(30) fm².[/QUOTE]
(emphasis added)

Wikipedia value (no citation though):
Deutrium

The measured electric quadrupole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm².

P.S.
Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

 

[pedrone]

Anomalous magnetic moments of ₁H³ and ₂He³​

It's impossible to calculate theoretically the magnetic moments of 1H3 and 2He3 from the current quark model of neutron. One can realize it by looking at the Schmidt's graphic:

• 1H3 is above the superior Schmidt's line

• 2He3 is below the inferior Schmidt's line

(page 682 of Eisberg-Resnick book)



The two anomalous magnetic moments of 1H3 and 2He3 are calculated by considering the neutron model of Quantum Ring Theory.

The page 229 of the book Quantum Ring Theory shows the structures of 1H3 and 2He3.
From the figures, we understand the cause of the anomaly: the electron number 1 that belongs to the neutron's structure n=p+e is deviated from its orbit, compressed by the flux n(o) which enters within the quark structure of the proton above the electron.

Such deviation of the electron's natural orbit about the proton in the structure of the neutron explains the anomaly, and it is the reason why it's impossible to get theoretically the magnetic moments of 1H3 and 2He3 from the current quark model of neutron.


The result of the Guglinski's theoretical calculation of magnetic moment of 1H3 is shown in the page 222 of Quantum Ring Theory:

 

[Cuddles]

Stop the incivility and bickering. While calling someone a liar along with evidence supporting the claim may be acceptable, simply repeating "liar" over and over again is not civil and will be moderated if you continue.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[pedrone]

Dont be so silly.
A value such as 2,8 x 10-31 m² is never equal to 2,7 x 10-31 m²

1. Hideki Yukawa got his Nobel Prize for "for his prediction of the existence of mesons on the basis of theoretical work on nuclear forces"
2. That the first estates of the mass of meason were ... estimates!
3. That the current theory and experiments agree (that is a little thing known as scientific progress).

 

[pedrone]

1. Diprotons may exist but not according to theory.
2. Dineutrons do not exist.
3. Deuterons exist.
4. Nuclei exist and are different environments from the free space in which diprotons do not exist, dineutron does not exist and deuterons exist.

Therefore, this states nothing about the formation of deuterons within the nuclei.

Diprotons according to the link posted by Reality Check:

Helium-2 is a hypothetical isotope of helium which according to theoretical calculations would have existed if the strong force had been 2% greater. This atom would have two protons without any neutrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29

​

 

[pedrone]

Second anomaly of the nucleus ₈O¹⁸​

The nucleus ₈O¹⁸ has another interesting anomaly, which Nuclear Physics cannot explain.

Look at in the N. J. Stone nuclear table its the electric quadrupole moment:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf

.............Q(b)....................Method
-0.010(13) or +.020(13)......CER
-0.07(3) or -0.05(3)...........CER
-0.11(2) or -0.08(2)...........CER
-0.05(2) or -0.02(2)...........CER


The experiments show that electric quadrupole moment of the excited ₈O¹⁸, measured by the same method, gets two different values.

One could claim that it is actually each one of them is one unique value, within the range of the error.
For instance, -0.010(13) or +.020(13) would be one unique value.

However, such hypothesis is belied by the values of the ₈O¹⁷:
-0.02578***st ...... EPR,R
-0.26(3) st ........... EPR,R

The ₈O¹⁷ has one unpaired neutron. Unlike, in the ₈O¹⁸ there is no unpaired neutron.

Therefore, if the two values of the ₈O¹⁸ should be due to the error, then ₈O¹⁷ would have to exhibit two values either, since the trembling motion of ₈O¹⁷ (due to the unbalance of mass) would have to stronger.
But ₈O¹⁷ does not exhibit two values of the quadrupole moment, as we saw in the nuclear table.

Therefore there is something very strange with the ₈O¹⁸, because:
1- All the nucleons are paired (there is no unbalance of mass)
2- But it exhibits two values of the quadrupole moment
3- The ₈O¹⁷ has one unpaired neutron (unbalance of mass)
4- But it does not exhibit two values of the quadrupole moment






Let's compare the errors in the measurements of ₈O¹⁸ and ₃Li⁷:

In 1983 the CER,R method obtained one unique value for the ₈O¹⁸:
-0.036(9) .....CER,R
Its error = 0.009

Compare with the error of ₃Li⁷, measured in 1991:
-0.0400(6) ......CER , with error 0.0006
-0.0400(3) ......CER , with error 0.0003

Compare:
1- The ₃Li⁷ has one unpaired neutron within a structure with only 7 nucleons (3 protons + 4 neutrons).
The trembing motion of ₃Li⁷ must be very stronger than that of ₈O¹⁸The error of ₃Li⁷ is between 0.0006 and 0.0003

2- The excited ₈O¹⁸ has no unpaired neutron.
Its error is 0.009

3- There is no way to explain, from current Nuclear Physics, why the error of ₃Li⁷ is so smaller than the error of ₈O¹⁸





Finally, compare:

1) ₈O¹⁸:
-0.036(9) .....CER,R

2) ₃Li⁷:
-0.0400(6) ......CER
-0.0400(3) ......CER

They have always the same value of the electric quadrupole moment.
How is it possible?

• The ₈O¹⁸ has a structure with 18 nucleons with NO unpaired neutron

• The ₃Li⁷ which has a structure with only 7 nucleons, and one neutron is unpaired

How can they have always the same quadrupole moment ????







There is no way to explain such anomaly of ₈O¹⁸ from the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics.

Ahead we will see how such anomaly is explained from the new nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory

 

[Reality Check]

Guglinski gets the deuteron electric quadrapole moment wrong 3 times

Don't call yourself a donkey, pedrone .
You are comparing 2 different situations:
Hideki Yukawa estimated the unknown mass of the meson from his theory. The mass of course had never been measured. It was measured and he was wrong.


Guglinski though calculated the measured electric quadrapole moment of deuteron and got it wrong three times

1. He used the wrong measured value for the electric quadrapole moment of deuteron.
   It is Q=0.285783(30) fm² (see this paper).
   It is not Q= 0.27 fm².
2. He used a proton radius of 0.275F that that gave a value that did not match his wrong measure.
3. He changed the proton radius to 0.26F (to not match any experimental data!) in order to match the wrong measure.

As soon as he made the basic mistake of not looking up the correct value of the electric quadrapole moment, he was always going to be wrong.

P.S.

Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

 

[Reality Check]

Guglinski fakes the value of the proton radius

The first page in 2 pages from his book in this post has Guglinski state that he is going to calculate the proton radius from experimental value of the "shell thickness" of a nucleus. He comes up with a value of R_p = 0.275F.
He omits out the standard practice of including the uncertainties in the calculation. That leaves the implied uncertainty in Rp of 1 in the last digit, i.e. R_p = 0.275 +/1 0.001F. He used R_p to get the wrong electric quadrapole moment of deuteron. His options were to

• Acknowledge that his exact value of R_p (0.275F) did not give the correct electric quadrapole moment.
• See if the uncertainties in his value of R_p gave values that overlapped the measured electric quadrapole moment.

Instead Guglinski changed the R_p derived from experimental data to 0.26F, i.e. outside of the implied uncertainty. This is known as faking your data.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Guglinski's citations

pedrone seems intent on posting every page from Guglinski's book

• 2 pages from his book in this post
• A couple here.

What seems to be missing is any citations.
Guglinski states experimentally derived values. He gives no citations to their sources.
He gets at least one value wrong (the measured electric quadrapole moment of deuteron Q=0.285783(30) fm² not 0.27 fm²).

pedrone: Where are Guglinski's citations?

 

[Reality Check]

Diprotons according to the link posted by Reality Check:

Helium-2 is a hypothetical isotope of helium which according to theoretical calculations would have existed if the strong force had been 2% greater. This atom would have two protons without any neutrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_489414db0b5998b36f.jpg[/URL]​

Diprotons according to the link posted by Reality Check and 2 paragraphs from the text quoted by pedrone:

There may have been observations of unstable 2He. In 2000, physicists first observed a new type of radioactive decay in which a nucleus emits two protons at once - perhaps a 2He nucleus.[8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29

 

[Reality Check]

Guglinski's theoretical calculation of magnetic moment of 1H3 is wrong

Anomalous magnetic moments of ₁H³ and ₂He³​

...
The result of the Guglinski's theoretical calculation of magnetic moment of 1H3 is shown in the page 222 of Quantum Ring Theory:

The result is:

• Guglinski's theoretical calculation = +3.0070432 nm
• Guglinski's quoted measured value = +2.97896 nm
• Actual measured value = 2.97896244(4)nm
  Stone's Table of Nuclear Magnetic Dipole and Electric Quadrupole Moments (PDF)

Once again Guglinski gets it wrong. His theoretical value is outside of bounds of the measured value.

FYI pedrone, the "(4)" in "2.97896244(4)" is the uncertainty. This means that the magnetic moment of 1H3 lies between

• 2.97896240 nm and
• 2.97896248 nm

I do hope that you can understand that 3.0070432 is greater than 2.97896248, pedrone.

 

[Reality Check]

Second anomaly of the nucleus ₈O¹⁸​

The nucleus ₈O¹⁸ has another interesting anomaly, which Nuclear Physics cannot explain.

Look at in the N. J. Stone nuclear table its the electric quadrupole moment:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/keune/deutsch/nuclear-moments.pdf

.............Q(b)....................Method
-0.010(13) or +.020(13)......CER
-0.07(3) or -0.05(3)...........CER
-0.11(2) or -0.08(2)...........CER
-0.05(2) or -0.02(2)...........CER
...
One could claim that it is actually each one of them is one unique value, within the range of the error.
...

Each one of
.............Q(b)....................Method..Citation
-0.036(9)..........................CER.R....1983Gr28 NP A411 329 (83)
-0.02(3)............................CER,R.....PRep 73 369 (81)
-0.010(13) or +.020(13).......CER.......1977Vo07 PRL 39 325 (77)
-0.07(3) or -0.05(3)............CER.......1977Fl10 PRL 39 446 (77)
-0.11(2) or -0.08(2)............CER.......ARM 75 (78)
-0.05(2) or -0.02(2)............CER.......1979Fe06 NP A321 457 (79)
is an experimental value with uncertainty.

There is nothing strange about the ₈O¹⁸ nucleus. There are merely various experimental values for its Q.
I suspect that they vary a lot because it is hard to measure the parameters of an excited state that lasts 2.07 picoseconds.

 

[pedrone]

Diprotons according to the link posted by Reality Check and 2 paragraphs from the text quoted by pedrone:


Quote:
There may have been observations of unstable 2He. In 2000, physicists first observed a new type of radioactive decay in which a nucleus emits two protons at once - perhaps a 2He nucleus.[8][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29

From that link:
The new experiment showed that the two protons were initially ejected together before decaying into separate protons much less than a billionth of a second later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28diproton.29

So, diprotons do not exist.

Actually two protons were emitted at the same time, but it does not mean that diproton exists

 

[pedrone]

The result is:

• Guglinski's theoretical calculation = +3.0070432 nm
• Guglinski's quoted measured value = +2.97896 nm
• Actual measured value = 2.97896244(4)nm
  Stone's Table of Nuclear Magnetic Dipole and Electric Quadrupole Moments (PDF)

Once again Guglinski gets it wrong. His theoretical value is outside of bounds of the measured value.

FYI pedrone, the "(4)" in "2.97896244(4)" is the uncertainty. This means that the magnetic moment of 1H3 lies between

• 2.97896240 nm and
• 2.97896248 nm

I do hope that you can understand that 3.0070432 is greater than 2.97896248, pedrone.

Reality Check,
show the calculations according to the current Nuclear Physics

Show that they are better than the results obtained by Guglinski

 

[pedrone]

There is nothing strange about the ₈O¹⁸ nucleus. There are merely various experimental values for its Q.
I suspect that they vary a lot because it is hard to measure the parameters of an excited state that lasts 2.07 picoseconds.

Well,
if there is nothing strange, as you claim,
then why didn't you explain the reason why ₈O¹⁸ and ₃Li⁷ have always the same value of the quadrupole moment ?


Please explain such strange results:

Finally, compare:

1) ₈O¹⁸:
-0.036(9) .....CER,R

2) ₃Li⁷:
-0.0400(6) ......CER
-0.0400(3) ......CER

They have always the same value of the electric quadrupole moment.
How is it possible?

• The ₈O¹⁸ has a structure with 18 nucleons with NO unpaired neutron

• The ₃Li⁷ which has a structure with only 7 nucleons, and one neutron is unpaired

How can they have always the same quadrupole moment ????

Please explain it to us, Reality Check

 

[catsmate]

At last you get it: 2.8 x 10^-31 m² is not equal to 2.7 x 10^-31 m²
Thus Guglinski got the wrong value, pedrone.

Really quite simple!

Another problem is with the 2 pages from his book in this post. These pages have obvious flaws such as

• using a derived value for proton radius to get the wrong value for the electric quadrpopole moment of deuteron.
• arbitarily changing the derived value and still getting the wrong value!

So the question becomes - it this is ons of the many crackpot science books out there or has Guglinski published his theory in peer-reviewed journals (hopefully without these flaws)

So pedrone,
Can you cite the papers that Guglinski has written on quantum ring theory?

Guglinski is another physics crank, a believer in cold fusion and similar nonsense. For example he says:

There is not yet in current Nuclear Physics a unique model of nucleus, capable to explain the ordinary nuclear phenomena, as magnetic moments, binding energies of nuclei, electric quadrupole moments, magic numbers, etc. There are several nuclear models, and each one of them is applied to explain a certain nuclear property. Besides, those several nuclear models are incompatible. And it’s hard to believe that Nature uses several different and incompatible structures for producing the nuclear phenomena.

I can't see his stuff passing peer review, mostly it's posted on crank sites like peswiki. Though he did send this letter to President Obama pimping his books.........

 

[pedrone]

Why excited ₈O¹⁸ has two values of
electric quadrupole moment​

There is not any theoretical calculation for the electric quadrupole moment of excited ₈O¹⁸ in Nuclear Physics, just because, from the current nuclear models, the excited ₈O¹⁸ must have null electric quadruople moment.

Ask to a honest nuclear physicist, and he will tell you:
"any ₈O¹⁸ , no matter if stable or excited, must have null electric quadrupole moment"



So, let's see how the two values of electric quadrupole of excited ₈O¹⁸ are explainded (and calculated) in Quantum Ring Theory.

A new nuclear model is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.


The new nuclear model is named Hexagonal Floors Model. It has a central 2He4, which produces a strong flux of gravitons, named n(o), which captures the nucleons (protons, neutrons, and deuterons).
Such flux n(o) is like a string.

Such sort of strings were predicted by Dirac, and detected by experiments in 2009:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/news/Panda_news/sag_magmonopole_03_09_09.htm


The nucleons captured by the flux n(o) form several hexagonal floors about the central 2He4.



The page 119 of the book Quantum Ring Theory shows the structure of ₈O¹⁶ and the ₂₀Ca⁴⁰
Of course the hexagonal floor is not flat as shown in the figures. The page 144 shows that actually the nucleons have an oscilation motion in the hexagonal floor (fig. 1.2 of the book, circulated by the red line)

The page 144 also shows how the addition of one neutron in the structure of ₈O¹⁶ changes the center of mass in the structure of ₈O¹⁷ (circulated by the green line)


The excited ₈O¹⁸ can have three structures, because the two unpaired neutrons can take three different positions in the hexagonal floor.
The three positions are shown in the third figure posted here (the two unpaired neutrons have red collor)

Each of those three structures of the excited ₈O¹⁸ have different electric quadrupole moment.
The first structure has null quadrupole moment, because the unpaired neutrons take a symmetrical position regarding to the central 2He4.

The two other structures produce different electric quadrupole moments, because the two unpaired neutrons take different positions regarding the central 2He4, and so the center of mass in each of the two structures is different, causing a different trembling motion of the nucleus, and different value of the electric quadrupole moment.

 

[pedrone]

Anomalous binding energy of ₂He⁴​

Helium-4 has an anomalous high binding energy. And there is not in current Nuclear Physics a satisfactory theory capable to explain such anomalous binding energy.

A theory was proposed by Thayer Watkins, where he gets a theoretical value near to the experimental value:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/He4.htm

However, if we apply the concepts used by Watkins for other nuclei, as for instance ₄Be⁸, ₆C¹², ₈O¹⁶, his theory does not work.
Indeed, if the hypothesis that he applies for ₂He⁴ should be applied to ₄Be⁸, ₆C¹², ₈O¹⁶, these nuclei would also have a high binding energy, even higher than that exhibited by ₂He⁴. But they don't have a high binding energy as observed in ₂He⁴ .

In short, his theory works only for the ₂He⁴.

This is the problem of the wrong theories. They work for one particular case to which they are proposed to explain, but they dont work for other cases.

The same happened to Bohr theory of the hydrogen atom. It did not work well when they applied his theory for the helium atom. So, the laws proposed by Bohr, applied to hydrogen atom, actually are not correct. The correct laws were achieved in the atom model of Quantum Mechanics.

Ahead we will show how the anomalous high binding energy of helium-4 is calculated in Quantum Ring Theory, by considering the new Hexagonal Floors Model proposed in the theory.

 

[nathan]

Nuclear Physics knows it is not entirely correct, if it was, it would stop.

 

[pedrone]

Nuclear Physics knows it is not entirely correct, if it was, it would stop.

Then why do quantum physicists claim cold fusion is impossible?

Cold fusion is impossible from the foundations of Nuclear Physics.
But as you agree that Nuclear Physics is not entirely correct, is it reasonable to take such incorrect theory so that to conclude that cold fusion is impossible ?